Can Religious Thought and Intellectual Honesty Coexist?

I think, in this discussion, the burden of proof lies on the non-religious to prove that religious thought and intellectual honesty cannot co-exist.

To this end, can I suggest a couple of questions:

(1) Is the concept of 'faith' logically incompatible with intellectual honesty?
(2) In practice, do all religions demand, to some extent, belief in things that (a) seem, on the best available evidence, to be false (b) have no evidence to suggest that they are truth.

Going into this discussion, my answer to both questions would be yes. It seems to me intellectually dishonest have 'faith' in the truth of something that either there is no evidence for, or worse, that there is substantial evidence against.

Even if 'faith' is limited to spiritual truths, rather than scientific truths, it seems intellectually dishonest to me to accept one spiritual hypothesis, and utterly dismiss all others, without any rational basis for this accepting and dismissing.

What are your thoughts?

Yes. If one asserts that a law, rule, commandment or precept is true, simply because a book deemed "holy" by the speaker says so, the speaker is closing the door on intellectual investigation. The definition of "faith" is, "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Therfore, in order to have "faith", it is necessary to suspend one's intellectual judgement on the pronouncements of the religion.



Absolutely- Heaven, hell, Satan, the earth being 6,000 years old, the creation of the world, to name familiar concepts, are simply religious constructs that have not a shread of scientific validity. The religion asks of its followers to believe these concepts without questioning their veracity, through "faith". If that is not intellectual dishonesty, I don't know what is!

ci,

It's a statement developed by a man who happens to be a dean at the university of wisconsin. I can find no University endorsement of the letter (other than that it is hosted on the university web servers), nor any indication that it was a university effort. From what I can see it is a letter posted by a man with a political agenda to refute the introduction of intelligent design into a Wisconsin school district.

It has gained some traction outside of Wisconsin, but is not a poll! And has just a little more legitimacy than your average Internet chain letter.

a2k has many "polls." Whether they have any legitimacy is another question.

A dean at the university of wisconsin may or may not have posted the poll. That doesn't preclude the fact that his poll has no legitimacy, unless somebody like you can prove otherwise.

If you believe it has no legitimacy, show us why?

ci,

I outlined my issues with the document on page 6 of this thread.

"ci, I'd agree if this were a study or even a poll, but its an internet letter which clergy are invited to "sign". It has a bare minimum of control by requiring one to send an email with your info on it (presumably keeps out all the Rev Mickey Mouses), but thats about all."

This is only your personal opinion. I would like to see more substantive evidence that this poll has no legitimacy other than your assumptions.

We are in agreement then, Phoenix. Any counter-arguments?

Why not?

This is not the place to open a debate on evolution. There many topics covering evolution on A2K already. Your question about the use of evolution knowledge has been addressed many times on those threads by experts in the various sciences. Here is one I just ran across concerning geology.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1011770#1011770


What you have just said there sounds like it is compatible with the letter. Do you agree with this statement from the letter, or do you read the Bible literally?

It's true that religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth, but religions truth is also different from all other truths. Other truths or beliefs that have as many contradictions, errors, and omissions would not be held as a truth by any stretch of the imagination.

Tell us about the errors and omissions, CI. I would particularly like to hear about the omissions that you seem to be aware of. Is this your truth?

I'd be happy to provide more if you ask:

Various Contradictions and Omissions
This table compares various verses in the KJV, NIV, NASB, and NWT. The term "OMITTED" is used when either the phrase or the verse in question is omitted. This table is a very small sampling of contradictory verses, not an exhaustive one.

Some people have objected to me comparing the NWT with the NIV and NASB. They complain that the NWT is an "obvious" corruption of Scripture on the part of the Jehovah's Witness cult. Instead of complaining about the comparison, they should be wondering why the NIV and NASB so frequently agree with the NWT.

I have noticed that in some cases, different editions may not treat a verse the same way. This table represents the verses as I have them in my printed editions (NIV 1984, NASB 1977, NWT 1984).

AV (King James) New International New American Standard New World Translation
Mt 9:13 for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners. For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.
Mt 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. OMITTED footnote casts doubt OMITTED
Mt 19:17 Why callest thou me good? "Why do you ask me about what is good?" "Why are you asking me about what is good?" "Wny do you ask me about what is good?"
Mt 25:13 Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh. You do not know the day or the hour. You do not know the day nor the hour. You know neither the day nor the hour,
Mk 10:24 .how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! .how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! .how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! .how difficult a thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God!
Lk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother,,, The child's father and mother. His father and mother. its father and mother.
Lk 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Man does not live on bread alone. Man shall not live on bread alone. Man must not live by bread alone.
Lh 4:8 Get thee behind me, Satan. OMITTED OMITTED OMITTED
Jn 6:47 He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. He who believes has everlasting life. He who believes has eternal life. He that believes has everlasting life.
Jn 8:9 And when they heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out. .those who heard began to go away. .when they heard it, they began to go out one by one. OMITTED
Jn 9:4 I must work the works of him that sent me. We must do the work of him who sent me. We must work the works of Him who sent Me. We must work the works of him that sent me.
Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one I and the Father are one. I and the Father are one. I and the Father are one.
Ac 2:30 that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; .he would place one of his descendants on his throne. .to seat one of his descendants upon his throne. .he would seat one from the fruitage of his loins upon his throne.
Ac 8:37 If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. OMITTED footnote casts doubt (some editions just omit it) OMITTED
Ac 23:9 Let us not fight against God. OMITTED OMITTED OMITTED
Rom 13:9 Thou shalt not bear false witness. OMITTED OMITTED OMITTED
Co 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. By means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.
1Ti 3:16 God was manifest in the flesh. He appeared in a body. He who was revealed in the flesh. He was made manifest in the flesh.
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. "from such withdraw thyself" is omitted "from such withdraw thyself" is omitted "from such withdraw thyself" is omitted
1Pe 1:22 Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit. you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth. Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls. Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth.
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. But every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. But every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God.
Re 5:14 Four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. .the elders fell down and worshipped. .the elders fell down and worshipped. .the elders fell down and worshipped.
Re 20:9 Fire came down from God out of heaven. Fire came down from heaven. Fire came down from heaven. Fire came down out of heaven.
Re 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it. The nations will walk by its light. And the nations shall walk by its light. And the nations will walk by means of its light.

See more corruptions and omissions.

King James Version Bible
Translation Errors
(Part 1)
Print This Article
We use the King James Version as our main study Bible. Why the King James? Because all the major Bible aides are based on the KJV. We have documented KJV translation errors and have marked them in our Bible. Newer versions are often not as faithful to the original text.

What's Wrong With Modern Translations?

The Old Testament has been faithfully preserved by the Jews in what is known as the Masoretic Text. There are few translation problems with the Old Testament.

However, most modern translations, from the Revised Standard Version (RSV) to the New International Version (NIV), use as their source for the New Testament a Greek Text based upon the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century. This text, publicized by Westcott and Hort, is also known as the Alexandrian Text. It originated in Egypt and has been massaged by "higher critics" down through the ages. These manuscripts, used in the RSV, represent less than 5% of known Greek Biblical manuscripts, but are supposedly more authentic because they are "old."

The bulk of New Testament manuscripts were copied century after century from earlier ones as they wore out. Older copies did not survive because these texts were used until worn out. This text, the so-called "Received Text" or "Byzantine Text" (also termed "Syrian", "Antioch", or Koine text) was used in the King James Version. Nearly 4,000 manuscripts of this Byzantine or Official Text agree almost perfectly with each other, and are a far better standard to go by than corrupt copies no matter how early they were made. Located primarily at Mt. Athos in Greece, copies of the Official Greek Text give us a very reliable record of the New Testament scriptures.



Proof the Received Text is Correct

Jay P. Green, Sr., General Editor and Translator of the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, states in his preface:

"The market-place is being glutted with new books which are being represented as versions of the Bible. Each one claims to be the very word of God, yet there are literally thousands of differences between them . . . . they all leave out dozens of references to the deity of Jesus Christ, and they add words which tend to question His virgin birth, His substitutionary, fully satisfying atonement. This is due to their decision to depend upon an Alexandrian [Egyptian] textbase, instead of that body of God's words which has been universally received and believed in for nineteen centuries, known to us as the Received Text. These new versions [such as the NIV, New Jerusalem Bible and others] are not only marked by additions, but also by subtractions, since some four whole pages of words, phrases, sentences and verses have been omitted by these new versions. And these are words attested to as God's words by overwhelming evidence contained in all the Greek manuscripts . . . .
" . . . it has been written, 'For I say to you, Until the heavens and the earth pass away, in no way shall pass away one iota or one point from the Law, until all things come to pass.'- -Matthew 5:18 [Green's paraphrased] . . . .

"What then is the evidence these Bible-alterers offer to persuade you to give up the precious words they have removed from their versions? Mainly, they cite two manuscripts, admittedly old, but also admittedly carelessly executed. The Sinaiticus was so poorly executed that seven different hands of 'textual critics' can be discerned as they tried to impose their views on the Bible . . . it was discarded, found in a wastebasket fourteen centuries after it was executed. The Vaticanus manuscript lay on a shelf in the Vatican library at Rome until 1431, and was considered so corrupt that no one would use it . . . . they have systematically removed Luke's witness to the ascension of Christ--and of course they have done away entirely with Mark's witness to the ascension, simply because these last twelve verses do not appear in those two corrupt manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus . . . .

" . . . Origen, an early textual critic . . . said, that 'the Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written' . . . . given the opportunity, many like Origen will actually alter the manuscripts to make them say what they understand them to mean....Justin Martyr, Valentinus, Clement of Alexandria, Marcion, Tatian, and a horde of others practiced their 'textual science' by operating on manuscripts, or by writing their own 'versions' . . . .

" . . . Today there are more than 5,000 manuscripts and lectionaries in Greek as witnesses to the New Testament text. And 95% of them witness to the Received Text readings [contained in Green's Interlinear and the King James Version]. Partly due to the fact that ancient manuscripts containing the Received Text were worn out by use, while the Alexandrian textbase manuscripts were preserved by the dry conditions of Egypt, some have sought to discredit the Received Text because they say it is not ancient. But now that manuscript portions from the second century are being unearthed, it is found that many of the readings of the Received Text which had been tagged scornfully as 'late readings' by nearly unanimous consent of the 'textual scientists' are appearing in these [newly found] manuscripts. Readings which were before called late and spurious have been found in these early-date manuscripts . . . . Yet strangely, in textual criticism classes, such discoveries are swept under the rug, not reported to the class."

We use the King James Version exclusively as our main study Bible, only using other translations to aid study of certain passages, to get another perspective. The fact that modern versions slavishly depend on the Egyptian and Vatican corruptions of the New Testament should make us avoid them as a "main Bible."

Why Are There Errors in the King James Version?

You have probably heard the joke about the bigoted Protestant fundamentalist who said, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!" People sometimes forget that the KJV was published in 1611 A.D.

For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the "official" text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church.

Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV.

The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are much, much worse!

Translation Errors

Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."

Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws.

Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this.

Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law.

John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ."

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong

No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead.

In Psalms 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God.

We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is incorrect and that "were cast" in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), "I am he." The "he" is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great "I AM" of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14.

In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words "the son" are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph.

Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words "it were". It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard!

Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words "to be." The fact is, Christians are now saints.

I Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God."

Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word "is" in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.

I Timothy 3:11 has "their" in italics, which is not implied in the original.

II Peter 2:5 should not have "person, a." Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness.

I John 2:23 has "[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek.

Punctuation Problems

Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." The comma should not be after "thee", but "day." The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future.

Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ."

Written by: Richard Nickels

This is your answer to this post?

Cicerone Imposter wrote:


Where did you cut and paste this from? Can you understand and explain what you pasted? Very convincing CI

Only christians can't see it.

Whatever happened to god when all those different translations were taking place? He no longer cares? LOL

Father forgive him for he knows not of which he speaks

Religion and intellectual honesty
I am a complete nerdy intellectual type and make no apologies, yes, I am one of the educated "elite," so, come on, put up your dukes if I piss you off. I'm used to being bashed for having a brain.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

The term "religion" is from the Latin, meaning to "bind." I would say it's mostly the idea of being bound to God and the struggle to be closer to the God in which one believes. Religion attempts to answer questions like, "what kind of person should I be?, how should I act?, what is my relationship to others?, how can I be a good person"? Faith is simply the belief that one might have that one can be closer to God and that God is good. What constitutes the practice of religion are things like religious writings (stories, laws, speeches, poems, songs, art, etc.) and rituals. While these are rich and diverse, the term "religion," can only have one meaning if we are to communicate clearly about it - a binding to God - nothing more, nothing less.

The term intellect is from the Greek, related to the word technical. It is simply a certain way of thinking - in a way, like a computer "thinks." We use the intellect to reason - to draw likely conclusions from evidence presented to us or experienced directly. We apply the intellect to all kinds of problems: how to fix a leaky faucet, how to apply the law fairly, how to predict weather patterns, even to figure out the likely place our dog has run off to. Let us define the intellect in this narrow way for our purposes - that which embraces the repeatable experiment. As a matter of fact, let's just come out and say it. We really mean science - "Religion and science."

What about "honesty"? - from the Latin "honor" - and what does it mean in this context - qualified by "intellectual"? Given that the term "intellect" is based on the idea of reason, one wonders why it needs that extra insurance that it is indeed "honest" and not some false, deceitful kind of reasoning. Let's buck the system, shall we? Let's assume honesty. Otherwise, we might just as well say "Religious honesty and the intellect." No, I think we should all hold our feet to the fire of truth as best we can - a collective endeavor. OK, all together now... ouch!

Now, I can state my hypothesis: Religion can tell us nothing about science and science can tell us nothing about religion. Can religious writings help you fix a leaky faucet? No. Do the religious need scientific proof of God? No.

So, what's the mix up? What's the big deal?

More to come, if you can stay awake reading it...

doomed, rather well said.

c.i., I, for one, appreciate all your work. It is true I think, though, that all we have to do is continue to study scripture as you are, until we realize we don't need it. It's amazing how much will just simply "come to us" the harder we study and try to understand.

What I most dislike about "religion" is the lack of book stores in churches. Information on all religions, their history and how they came about should be available in all churches. What are they all afraid of? Mature adults don't need anybody to tell them what a book "says."

When we take in somebody elses' beliefs as children, it could be said that our bucket is full, there is no room for discovery. Children cannot grow up to be sane individuals carrying around a head full of adult literature, not even knowing that outdated materials, or outright lies, must be sloughed off the brainwaves.

Sad thing is it is so exciting, so much fun, to just begin to understand all that stuff religions think only they can explain. This is the information age, damit, it may not return for a long long time.

Re: Religion and intellectual honesty


If you are half as intelligent as you think you are...

...you should be able to see that "belief" in a religious context...is nothing more than blind guesses about the unknown. "Faith"...is merely the bull-headed insistence that those guesses are more than guesses.

Re: Religion and intellectual honesty


Do you have a problem with that, Frank? Interesting that you refer to belief in a "religious context". Is a religious context somehow different that any other context? If you were half as intelligent as you think you are, you would not make the distinction.

1. acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty

2. trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective

3. something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true

4. opinion: an opinion, especially a firm and considered one

5. religious faith: faith in God or in a religion's gods